Ex-AFL coach’s explosive Brayden Maynard tribunal theory

A former AFL coach says there was much more going on beneath the surface of the controversial Brayden Maynard tribunal case.

Brayden Maynard's visit to Angus Brayshaw's house reportedly hasn't been well received.

Former St Kilda coach Grant Thomas says the AFL has been motivated by fears of future lawsuits in its handling of the Brayden Maynard tribunal storm.

The Collingwood star was cleared by the Tribunal after a four-hour hearing on Tuesday night, but it’s clear the community is still divided by the verdict.

The panel found Maynard’s smothering action was “reasonable”, despite the act resulting in Melbourne midfielder Angus Brayshaw being knocked unconscious for two minutes, according to reports.

Watch every match of The 2023 Toyota AFL Finals Series before the Grand Final Live & Ad-Break Free During Play on Kayo Sports. Join now and start streaming instantly >

Even before the hearing began, controversy swirled around the league’s decision to send Maynard to the tribunal — overruling Match Review Officer Michael Christian, who had found Maynard had no case to answer.

Instead, new AFL executive general manager Laura Kane exercised her powers to ignore the MRO report in a move that has reportedly seen Christian threaten to quit his role.

The AFL will decide on Wednesday if it will appeal the tribunal’s verdict, that has cleared the Magpies vice-captain to play in the preliminary final against either Port Adelaide or the Giants.

Thomas said the league’s actions show it is motivated by a desire to ward against the threat of future lawsuits surrounding head injuries in the game.

The league was rocked in March when 60 players launched unprecedented legal action with demands for players to be compensated for the injuries they received.

Maynard was cleared by the Tribunal. Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images

After hearing the Maynard verdict, Thomas posted on Twitter: “Sanity prevails. AFL still considering appealing against decision.

“So they disputed and overturned MRO decision and sent it to tribunal. Now they’re considering challenging their tribunal decision. All for the “look” as evidence against future litigation.”

Thomas said on Monday the AFL would be “gravely mistaken” to argue Maynard had a duty of care for the consequences of his jumping smother.

“Their motive would be litigation down the track,” he posted.

“They can’t assess objectively because of the potential around litigation.”

The other side of the coin is a call from Brayshaw’s brother Hamish, who told SEN Sportsday on Tuesday it would be an “injustice” if the AFL failed to appeal the decision if Maynard got off.

It comes after extraordinary comments from leading Melbourne Kings Council Paul Ehrlich on Sunday where the legal expert said it was “astonishing” that the AFL got involved in the match review process.

“This is an AFL football match. There’s always going to be incidental contact in legitimate football actions,” Erlich told 3AW. ”

“It’s a final. I’ve got absolutely no understanding of how he (Maynard) could be criticised for trying to smother the ball and he almost got it.

They were scary scenes on Thursday night. Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images

“I really don’t understand why this is being singled out for some special treatment. I find it astonishing that the executive of the AFL have got themselves involved in this as well.

“It’s astonishing. If you look at it this way, this is meant to be an independent judicial system, as much as it can be.

“They set up this system and there’s a reserve power that’s reserved to the AFL to charge if the match review officer is not going to do it. But what is it about this incident that is so out of the ordinary that they would exercise that reserve power?

“It’s not like it’s happening 20 hours behind play and you’ve got someone being king hit. This is very much in the game. It doesn’t strike me as something the AFL should overrule.”

The hit in question. Photo: Fox Sports

Collingwood great and 3AW commentator Tony Shaw responded to the comments by saying: “I think the answer there is the legalities there with head knocks and concussions – and what’s going on – has forced the decision to be taken out of the hands of someone else. That’s how I see it”.

Erlich responded: “I think you’re right. If you break that down as well. Most of the serious concussions that happen in football that they’re concerned about are shoulder charges, the hip-and-shoulder. The distinction between what happened on Thursday night and a hip-and-shoulder where you try and line someone up who doesn’t even have the ball and just happens to be within five metres are very different things.

“The AFL have created a rod for their own back in this. No other football contact sport allows you to shoulder charge anymore. In rugby you have to tackle with your arms, in both of the rugby sports you can’t shoulder charge. So if the AFL is really concerned about concussion they should have banned the shoulder charge long ago. And I don’t think you can really draw a parallel between hip-and-shoulders and someone who jumps in the air to smother the ball – and regrettably there’s a collision.”

Erlich went on to say: “There’s no doubt, as soon as the AFL see concussion they go, ‘We’ve got to stop that’, but regrettably this is a fiercely contested game… you play football and sometimes people get knocked out in circumstances where someone’s not being careless.

“I still cannot identify what is it that he did that was careless? Apart from turning up and playing football.”

The AFL is yet to announce if it will appeal the tribunal verdict.